Ananthapadmanabhan A.S v. State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala and Inspector of Police, Vattiyoorkavu Police Station

BA No.4283 of 2025 1 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28866 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 4283 OF 2025 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1370/2024 OF Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, ``` ## **`Thiruvananthapuram`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2025 IN CRMC NO.763 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2025 IN CRMC NO.304 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:`** ## **`ANANTHAPADMANABHAN A.S`** ``` AGED 20 YEARS, S/O ASOK KUMAR C TC-10/1236, HOUSE NO. A/18, CHITHRA NAGAR, VATTIYOORKAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013 ``` ## **`BY ADV L.SATHY`** ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE VATTIYOORKAVU POLICE STATION, VTTIYOORKAVU , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695013`** BA No.4283 of 2025 2 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28866 ``` ``` BY ADV.: ``` ## **`SR PP-HRITHWIK C S`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` BA No.4283 of 2025 3 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [94 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** **----- Start of picture text -----**<br> 2025:KER:28866<br>**----- End of picture text -----**<br> ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------** ## **BA No.4283 of 2025** **-------------------------------------------Dated this the 03[rd] day of April, 2025** ## **O R D E R** This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 2. Petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1370/2024 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 296(b) and 110 r/w Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that, on BA No.4283 of 2025 4 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28866 ``` 18.12.2024 at bout 8.30 p.m., near the Ration Shop situated at Manikandeswaram, accused Nos. 1 and 2 wrongfully restrained defacto complainant, while he was riding a Scooter, and the 2[nd] accused uttered abusive words against him and assaulted him. It is alleged that, the 2[nd] accused caught hold of the shirt of the defacto complainant and fisted below his right eye and pulled him down from the Scooter. Thereafter, the 2[nd] accused grabbed the hair of the defacto complainant and fisted him on his back, and he handed over a sharp-edged broken spring connected key to the 1[st] accused and exhorted to stab the defacto complainant. When the 1[st] accused wielded the key towards the face of the defacto complainant, he evaded the same, but it hit on his nose, causing an injury. Thereafter, the 2[nd] accused fisted the defacto complainant with the same BA No.4283 of 2025 5 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28866 ``` weapon, on his face, causing fracture to his facial bone. When the defacto complainant fell down, the 1st accused attempted to stab him on his stomach, by using the sharp-edged broken spring connected key, and when he tried to prevent the same, it hit on his stomach, again causing an injury. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner filed two bail applications before the trial court earlier. Those bail applications were dismissed. Now, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Section 118(2) of BNS is deleted. If that be the case, what remains is only 118(1) and 110 of BNS. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the ingredients of Section 110 of BNS is there is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. I BA No.4283 of 2025 6 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## `2025:KER:28866` don’t want to make any observation about the same. As far as Section 118(1) of BNS is concerned, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is only three years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the petitioner can be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions. 6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement** [2019 (16) SCALE 870],_ after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 7. Recently the Apex Court in _**Siddharth v**_ BA No.4283 of 2025 7 ``` 2025:KER:28866 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ## _**State of Uttar Pradesh and Another** [2021(5)KHC_ _353]_ considered the point in detail. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is extracted hereunder. “12. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. (Joginder Kumar v. State of UP and Others (1994 KHC 189: (1994) 4 SCC 260: 1994 (1) KLT 919: 1994 (2) KLJ 97: AIR 1994 SC 1349: 1994 CriLJ 1981)) If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to BA No.4283 of 2025 8 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28866 ``` appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.” ## 8. In _**Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of**_ _**Investigation** [2023 KHC 6961],_ the Apex Court observed that, even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following conditions: _1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation._ _2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty_ BA No.4283 of 2025 9 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28866 ``` _Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned._ _3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer._ _4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court._ _5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he_ BA No.4283 of 2025 10 ``` 2025:KER:28866 ``` **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** _is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected._ _6. The observations and findings in this order is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application. The principle laid down by this Court in_ _**Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala** [2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260] is applicable in this case also._ _7. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in_ _**Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]._ _8. If any of the above conditions are_ BA No.4283 of 2025 11 **==> picture [57 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:28866 ``` _violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though this bail is granted by this Court. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to cancel the bail, if any of the above conditions are violated._ nvj **Sd/P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE**